ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, has been filed by the petitioners. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 9 are directors and ex -directors of petitioner No. 1 company, The company was established for manufacturing, trading and/or dealing in wires, cables, lines of all kinds, conductors, mains, pipes, flexible cords, etc. In the application, detailed reasons have been given, on account of which, the company became sick and has remained closed since long. Since the company became sick, the matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). It has not been possible to write the books of account of the company needed by the BIFR, in spite of the efforts made -in this direction. Earlier, two company petitions, bearing Nos. 1 of 1987 and 1 of 1990, were filed, making the same prayer, as has been made in' the application under consideration. The aforesaid two applications were disposed of by this court, by a detailed order dated August 24, 1990, in which, the matter regarding giving relief to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, was carefully considered and the relief, prayed for was granted for a period of one year and six months from the date of the order. Notice of this petition was given to the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Government of India and Government of Rajasthan. The notices were also sent by registered post. None of the non -petitioners has appeared, nor has any reply been filed on their behalf, in spite of service. When the earlier applications, mentioned above, were considered, counsel had appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Companies and, in the larger public interest, had not opposed the grant of the applications, but had prayed that the exemption should not be granted in perpetuity and be granted for a limited period.

(2.) I have gone through the application, in which detailed reasons and circumstances have been stated, regarding sickness of the company. There is no doubt that the officers/directors of the company have to discharge various duties and file the required returns. From the facts stated above in the petition, under consideration, it can be said that there have been changes and the board of directors has been reconstituted for one reason or the other. The matter is pending before the BIFR and efforts are under way to revive the company. I do not feel it necessary to burden this order with greater details, in view of the earlier order dated August 24, 1990, passed by this court, in which, necessary reasons and details have been given, The position continues to be the same. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, in the circumstances, it is not possible for the non -petitioners to discharge the statutory obligations and it will be in the public interest to relieve the present and existing directors elected or nominated and ex -directors to discharge their duties under the Rules.